Maneotis v. FCA US, LLC (In re FCA US LLC Monostable Electronic Gearshift Litig.)

597 F.Supp.3d 1121

IN RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT LITIGATION

Dedra Maneotis, Plaintiff,

v.FCA US, LLC, Defendant.

Case Number 16-md-02744, Case Number 17-10351

MDL No. 2744

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed April 5, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT

DAVID M. LAWSON, United States District Judge

The defendant has moved for summary judgment on its statute of limitations affirmative defense. The motion is fully briefed, and oral argument will not assist in its disposition. The Court, therefore, will decide that motion on the papers submitted. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2). The defendant contends that the plaintiff's product liability claims are time barred under Colorado law, which governs this dispute, because it is undisputed that they were filed more than two years after the injury accident, and the record does not support any exception under which the untimely filing may be excused. The plaintiff responds that the record leaves open questions of fact about whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position would have been fully informed about the existence of a gear shift design defect and its probable role in causing the injury accident, and, at any rate, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the application of equitable tolling to forgive the tardy filing of the plaintiff's claims. The Court previously denied the defendant's motion to dismiss brought on the same grounds. The discovery in the case has refined the parties’ arguments, but the facts that have emerged support the plaintiff's argument and preclude judgment as a matter of law. The motion will be denied.

I.

The basic facts and procedural history of this personal injury matter were discussed at length in the Court's prior opinion, and most of the circumstances of the accident are neither seriously in dispute nor pertinent to the questions presented by this motion.

Plaintiff Dedra Maneotis was injured in December 2013 when her 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled over her leg after she exited the vehicle at her home in Craig, Colorado, thinking she had successfully put the vehicle in "Park." She sued defendant FCA US, LLC, alleging that a design defect in the gear shift mechanism installed in her Jeep led to her injuries. Maneotis's initial complaint, filed in the District of Colorado, was transferred to this Court by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and consolidated with the MDL proceedings. The MDL plaintiffs collectively filed a consolidated master complaint for personal injury actions, which included the claims brought by Maneotis, a citizen of Colorado. However, to sharpen the pleadings for the purposes of dispositive motion practice, Maneotis filed her own individual first amended complaint, which contained only her claims.

A. Current Facts from the Discovery

The following facts unique to this case and relevant to the defendant's statute of limitations defense come from the record developed in discovery.

1. The Accident

The plaintiff's family has owned and run the Victory Motors Chrysler dealership since the mid-1970s. Dedra Maneotis dep., ECF No. 578-2, PageID.23712. Ms. Maneotis frequently received loaner vehicles from the dealership to drive, changing cars usually around once a month, and her sons provided the 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee as a loaner sometime in late 2013. Id. at PageID.23713. Before the accident in December 2013, Maneotis could not recall any other incidents where she tried to put the car in park, but it rolled away unexpectedly. Id. at PageID.23714. The 2013 accident happened when Ms. Maneotis pulled the Jeep into her driveway and tried to put it in park, but when she started to get out, the car began to move. Ibid. She tried to hang on and get back into the car, but she was unable to regain control, and she lost her grip and was pulled under the front wheel as the Jeep rolled over her. Ibid.

The plaintiff's son, Steven Maneotis, testified that when he gave the Grand Cherokee to his mother to drive, he explained to her that "the design [of the shifter] was different," and that she would "not feel the ratcheting" of the shifter, but just a "rocking motion." Steven Maneotis dep., ECF No. 578-3, PageID.23722. Steven testified that he relied entirely on Chrysler and recall notices disseminated by the defendant to learn about any defects with the cars he sold, and neither he nor his service team would rely on "third-party" sites like NHTSA when investigating any complaints about the cars sold or serviced at the dealership. Id. at PageID.23725-26.

The plaintiff's daughter, Irene Kitzman, testified that her mother was given the Grand Cherokee as a loaner in August 2013, and she observed that Ms. Maneotis drove the Grand Cherokee to and from work at the dealership daily. Irene Kitzman dep., ECF No. 578-4, PageID.23730. Ms. Kitzman never saw her mother have any problems using the gear shifter in the car, and her mother never mentioned any difficulties using the shifter. Ibid.

The plaintiff's son, Tony Maneotis, testified that his mother told him during the months she drove the Grand Cherokee that she was "very uncomfortable," and "sometimes doesn't feel that it's there [or] can't tell when she's ... engaging it into [ ] park." Tony Maneotis dep., ECF No. 578-5, PageID.23735. The day after the accident, Tony had the Grand Cherokee taken to the dealership to be examined by mechanics there. Id. at PageID.23738. The dealership service manager and a technician inspected the vehicle and called the defendant's STAR team. Id. at PageID.23740-41. The STAR Team directed the service team through a series of test modes, which revealed no diagnostic trouble codes. Id. at PageID.23742. The service team asked the STAR representatives to open a case on the accident, but the STAR team refused, stating that a case would not be opened because the accident was caused by "driver error." Id. at PageID.23742-43.

Sometime in 2014, Tony told the defendant's representative Bob Lilly about his mother's accident, and Lilly denied knowing about similar rollaway incidents. Id. at PageID.23744. Tony mentioned the accident to other representatives of the defendant on other occasions, but they also told him that they had "never heard of" similar problems. Id. at PageID.23746. In May or June 2015, Tony attended a dealer meeting where the defendant's representatives stated that due to some "incidents" and "problems" with the monostable shifter design, newer models would be using a different shifter. Id. at PageID.23745. Ms. Maneotis was not involved in any of the discussions with the STAR Team or other FCA representatives. Id. at PageID.23749. Tony Maneotis did not learn that Chrysler had determined that any safety defect existed in the gear shifter until the recall notice was issued in April 2016. Id. at PageID.23755. When the family first discussed suing Chrysler, their belief was that the accident had been caused when the transmission "slipped out of park" into another gear, after his mother had correctly placed the vehicle in park. Id. at PageID.23754.

The plaintiff's neighbor, Sarah Powers, was nearby when the accident occurred and was present when the plaintiff's husband arrived at the scene. During a "tirade" about the accident, Mr. Maneotis stated that "[h]e thought it was something had to do with a new fangled whatever where you don't think it's off and it's off but it's not off ... something to that effect." Sarah Powers dep., ECF No. 578-6, PageID.23760.

Officer Ryan Fritz responded to the scene of the accident, and at his deposition he testified that Ms. Maneotis "told [him] that she thought it was in park, but it was one of those electric shift levers," and he "guessed" that "when she shut if off it was in either neutral or drive" instead. Ryan Fritz dep., ECF No. 575-7, PageID.23763.

2. The Defect

The plaintiff's human factors expert produced a report summarizing the safety concerns with the gear shifter design that were highlighted by a driving study he carried out, which was intended roughly to mirror the design of a 2012 focus group study commissioned by the defendant and performed by its research firm, Lextant. Both studies compared various models of gear shifters for ease of use and incidence of errors. An unabridged version of that report has been docketed and was cited in the parties’ briefs on the defendant's motion for summary judgment in the economic loss cases. Expert Report of Craig Rosenberg dated Oct. 22, 2018, ECF No. 619-39. The summary that follows cites that full copy of the report.

Rosenberg's study used two vehicles, which were driven through a series of scripted exercises by 31 drivers recruited from the driving public. One was a 2015 Jeep Cherokee equipped with the monostable gear shifter (the same model and configuration as the plaintiff's accident vehicle), and the other was a 2019 Jeep Cherokee equipped with a successor "polystable lever" gearshift design. The drivers in the study all were fluent in English, ranged in age from 20 to 59, and were experienced motorists who reported driving at least 7,000 miles per year. Expert Report, ECF No. 619-39, PageID.28670-71. Rosenberg selected participants to ensure that he had a mix of those both with and without previous experience using monostable type shifters. Id. at PageID.28671. The driving exercises were conducted with one participant at a time in an unoccupied parking lot of a closed retail store, during daylight hours, in clear weather conditions. Id. at PageID.28675-76. Rosenberg was in the vehicle during the exercises, and he used a GoPro camera to record the driver's activity. Id. at PageID.28676. The same 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the monostable shifter was used in all exercises, along with a second "control" vehicle, the 2019 Grand Cherokee with the polystable lever shifter. That shifter, although also electronic, appears and functions more like a traditional non-electronic "ga...